undefined | Better HN

0 pointstalmand12y ago0 comments

He didn't say nor have I ever heard a libertarian claim they wanted no government. I believe that's a different ideology.

0 comments

VikingCoder12y ago

He said, "Ultra limited government."

Does ultra-limited government include government-provided roads, infrastructure, safe food, safe cars, electricity, water, internet?

jaekwon12y ago

No reason it couldn't. It's not the size of a government that determines its efficacy, esp with the right kind of private-sector support.

VikingCoder12y ago

Then it's a MEANINGLESS PHRASE.

2 more replies

nitrogen12y ago

Maybe "ultra-" in this case was used to indicate that the limits would be strict, not that they would be extremely small.

VikingCoder12y ago

Maybe "ultra-" is a meaningless phrase that makes people feel good, but conveys zero information content, and so it's not worthy of debate.

d2312y ago

> Ultra limited government.

Pretty damn close.

robomartin12y ago

Nope. A rough count shows that over twenty million people work directly for our govenments from local to federal.

http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11fedfun.pdf

http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11stlus.txt

If we reduced government by 90% by reduction, automation, privatization and outright agency elimination you'd still have two million people in government.

"Ultra-limited" does not mean "no government".

I think 50% to 75% could be a good range. So you'd still have somewhere between five and ten million people in government.

Also, "ultra limited" refers more to what they are allowed to do rather than how many.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

VikingCoder12y ago

He said, "Ultra limited government."

Does ultra-limited government include government-provided roads, infrastructure, safe food, safe cars, electricity, water, internet?

jaekwon12y ago

No reason it couldn't. It's not the size of a government that determines its efficacy, esp with the right kind of private-sector support.

VikingCoder12y ago

Then it's a MEANINGLESS PHRASE.

2 more replies

nitrogen12y ago

Maybe "ultra-" in this case was used to indicate that the limits would be strict, not that they would be extremely small.

VikingCoder12y ago

Maybe "ultra-" is a meaningless phrase that makes people feel good, but conveys zero information content, and so it's not worthy of debate.

d2312y ago

> Ultra limited government.

Pretty damn close.

robomartin12y ago

Nope. A rough count shows that over twenty million people work directly for our govenments from local to federal.

http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11fedfun.pdf

http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11stlus.txt

If we reduced government by 90% by reduction, automation, privatization and outright agency elimination you'd still have two million people in government.

"Ultra-limited" does not mean "no government".

I think 50% to 75% could be a good range. So you'd still have somewhere between five and ten million people in government.

Also, "ultra limited" refers more to what they are allowed to do rather than how many.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse